A few thoughts at random, excited by the debate.
Opinion.
My old mate Opinion - along with his cousin in subjectiveness,
judgement - may have picked up a poor reputation. (Probably from
hanging around with folk like me.) Let's review his case.
There is a spectrum of value against which opinion can be assessed. To
be sure, one end of the spectrum can be classified 'worthless'.
However, at the other end, adjectives such as 'learned' and 'expert'
are usually applied to the noun in question.
Another mate, the lawyer, would be out of a job but for the commercial
value of his opinions. He sells them, and gets a good price. Indeed,
those countries with a common law (or 'caselaw') tradition would have
no system of jurisprudence (read as 'Check on Government') at all but
for opinion. Senior professionals routinely are called upon to express
opinion on the conduct of their fellow-professionals.
People who have accumulated considerable experience and status within
a profession, are generally accepted by society as being capable
judges of such things as how well (or poorly) a fellow-professional
prepared for his or her conduct of professional tasks. In other words,
a professional (pilot, doctor, lawyer) can achieve a position from
which their opinion is of tremendous weight and merit - even in such
difficult matters as assessing safety factors in fellow humans.
Having attained 'expert' status, it will be greatly valued, not put at
risk, such as by advancing opinion loosely, thoughtlessly, or without
solid grounds.
Scientific (&/or other) Studies.
Keith, there may not be a lot around, but there are some. The Swedish
academic studies that led to the design and implementation of the
Defence Mechanism Test (DMT) are pretty dated by now, but their
scientific rigour looked good to me, back when I organised to (as Air
Force Director of Training) trial the DMT Down Under.
The DMT trial was a sub-element of a study that looked at, with the
usual academic disciplne, and over a two-year period, twenty years'
experience with pilot selection, training, and subsequent pilot-career
progress. It was quality work, even though (mostly) subjective.
(By the way, the principal conclusion of the Swedish studies was that
high denial - or ego-protection - was strongly correlated with poor
performance under stress. That's what we want to know about pilots -
how well will they will handle stress??? Some of us who were involved
in the Australian trial of the DMT remain convinced of the merits of
its - or some equivalent - method of testing to answer that question.)
There are other studies such as reported in Robert Dixon's book, on
The Psychology of Military Incompetence. It, admittedly, uses the case
study method - but it perfectly describes the phenomenon wherein an
individual superimposes his/her preferred version of reality over the
grim truth. This is denial - at very high levels - and it is exactly
what pilots do when they refuse to admit the approach or presence of
danger. (The Cali 757 CVR transcript is worthy of review from this
perspective.)
Acceptance of Risk.
People who have died on Mt Everest climbed into a hazard zone - and
they processed their evaluation of the ambient risk factor in ways
that are familiar to accident investigators in any field. But - and it
is important to note this - they did accept the risk voluntarily.
Passengers in aircraft do not. And the pilot in command may not accept
risk vicariously - on behalf of the passengers. Thus the 'duty of
care' imposed on the professional pilot is manifestly greater. Or, at
least, it should be, especially in terms of professional preparedness.
Of course, it is not just about pilots. A rogue businessman who trades
on in the face of overwhelming evidence of bankruptcy similarly averts
his gaze from - denies - the evidence of danger. His irresponsibilty
may cause havoc and hurt - but no fatalities (at least, not directly).
Implanting/Nurturing Roguism.
To add support to part of Tony's evolving thesis (and acknowledging
that Hugo has said much the same thing, only more elegantly), in this
country, the regulating agency (CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority) is not regarded, by the aviation community, with respect
and affection -- and that is fertile ground for seeds of roguism to be
sown and thereafter nurtured.
A clue to this syndrome may be found in US literature - the 'doctrine
of civic disobedience' (was it Thoreau?).
The argument is this: When the rule of law becomes so despised by the
citizens (be it through corruption, venality, lack of representation,
whatever) then refusal to co-operate with authority is promoted from
being offence against the law to proper and urgent duty. The Emperor
enfeebled by madness, we must all go to the barricades in revolt.
Our Emperor, CASA, is routinely and frequently 'bagged' by instructors
in flying schools. That teaches students that disrespect for CASA's
mandate (and rules) is OK. In a highly macho environment, that easily
translates into rejection of regulatory dictates becoming an heroic
and just cause - the duty of disobedience! Some of these embryo
aviators go on to careers in an airline. And they carry with them the
rogue pathogen, without a shadow of doubt.
For your profile list: Rogues are averse to reading accident reports.
End Note
Like I said, just some random thoughts - but only my opinion.
Cheers
Doug